Today my BC Green caucus colleagues Adam Olsen, Sonia Furstenau and I held a press conference at the BC Legislature. We were joined by Metchosin Councillor and forest ecologist Andy MacKinnon, Kathy Code Vice-Chair and Director of Communications for the Ecoforestry Institute Society (the Trustees of Wildwood Ecoforest), and Rachel Ablack, Andrea Inness and Stephanie Korolyk from Ancient Forest Alliance. We called on the BC government to impose an immediate moratorium on logging of Vancouver Island’s last remaining old-growth whie at the same time as assisting existing mills to retool so they can focus on processing second-growth.

For those interested in further information on this call, I encourage to visit the BC Green Party website where more details and background are provided.

Below I reproduce the media release that we issued in response to this call for action.

Media Release

B.C. Greens call for immediate moratorium on logging of VI old-growth, support sustainable second-growth industry
For immediate release
May 13, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – Today at the Legislature, forestry and community stakeholders joined the B.C. Greens in calling for a moratorium to protect Vancouver Island’s vital old-growth ecosystems and to develop more sustainable forest practices that B.C. can depend on for generations to come.

“Our coastal old-growth is not a renewable resource – and there’s not much left,” said MLA Sonia Furstenau, deputy leader of the B.C. Greens. “Stakeholders and experts are clear that the government is inflating the amount of productive old-growth that’s protected from logging. These globally rare ecosystems support threatened species – including wild salmon – and keep our water and air clean.

“We are demanding that the provincial government immediately halt logging in old-growth hotspots on Vancouver Island and invest in transitioning to a sustainable second-growth economy.”

The B.C. Green caucus is calling on government to protect “hotspots”- the few remaining intact, pristine old-growth forests – on Vancouver Island and the people, species, and businesses that depend on them.

“Last year, hundreds of scientists from around the world wrote the NDP government and asked them to protect our rainforests,” Furstenau said. “Last fall, a petition with hundreds of thousands of signatures calling for the same was delivered to the Legislature. Our B.C. Green offices have received more than 20,000 emails from concerned British Columbians asking why the province continues to eradicate its old-growth. We need to take action now.”

At present, 79 per cent of the original productive old-growth forests on Vancouver Island have been logged, including 90 per cent of the valley bottoms where the largest trees grow. Yet according to multiple reviews of their sales schedule, the provincial timber agency is actively auctioning off the remaining old-growth for logging. Despite its 2017 campaign rhetoric, the NDP government is continuing to pursue the Liberal government’s old- growth logging legacy.

“Forestry jobs are of critical importance to B.C., but thousands have been lost over the last few decades. That’s because we haven’t been managing our forests sustainably or promoting value-added manufacturing,” said B.C. Green MLA Adam Olsen, who shares the role of forestry spokesperson. “We want high-paying jobs that are not vulnerable to boom-bust economics. There are mills on Vancouver Island that can only process old-growth. But old-growth is a finite resource, and most of it is already gone. That means those forestry jobs are at risk.

“There are so many solutions available,” Olsen continued. “We can invest in value-added manufacturing and refit our mills. We can sustainably harvest using practices informed by scientific evidence and traditional knowledge. We can collaborate with local communities and Indigenous people who have an intimate knowledge of their landbase.”

“Logging old-growth is short-sighted,” added Furstenau. “It jeopardizes the job stability, local economies, and ecosystem health. The government cannot continue to talk about a future strategy while actively logging these endangered forests. They must act now, or British Columbians and future generations will suffer consequences.”

Quotes:

Andrea Inness, Ancient Forest Alliance Campaigner –

“Old-growth hotspots represent the very best of what remains of B.C.’s unprotected and endangered ancient forests. But thanks to B.C.’s destructive forest policies, they’re disappearing before our eyes. Although we desperately need long-term, science-based solutions for all of B.C. old-growth forests, it is imperative the B.C. government immediately halt logging in hotspots to ensure those areas with the highest conservation value receive the protection they deserve.”

Josie Osborne, Mayor of Tofino –

“We can have healthy, vibrant forest-based economies in Vancouver Island communities while conserving intact, high-productivity hotspots if we have strong leadership, a bold vision, and a plan for a fair transition to a new way of conducting forestry. I believe that industry, First Nations, and communities share the right values to make this transition successfully.”

Lisa Helps, Mayor of Victoria –

“I’d like to add my voice to the chorus of municipal and business leaders on the island calling for the protection of some of the island’s most precious ecological assets and for the preservation of biodiversity. As serious climate leaders, we must protect Vancouver Island’s remaining old-growth forests for generations to come.”

Andy MacKinnon, Forest Ecologist –

“For millennia B.C.’s magnificent coastal old-growth forests have provided us with a wealth of social, economic and ecological benefits. Logging old-growth forests is not renewable resource management – once these old-growth forests are gone, they’re gone forever. And if we’re logging 10,000 hectares of old-growth forests on Vancouver Island every year, we’re certainly the last generation that will have a chance to save these forests for our children.”

Barry Gates, Ecoforestry Institute Society Co-Chair –

“Wildwood Ecoforest serves an example of what forests on Vancouver Island might have looked like had government not engaged in a management policy of old-growth elimination and the replacement of these magnificent forests by short rotation, mono-species stands. In the face of climate change, this decision will have devastating consequences.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Third Party Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

On Thursday last week I was up during budget estimate debates to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum resources a series of questions pertaining to BC Hydro, the standing offer program for clean energy, and Site C. As you will see from the exchange (reproduced in text and video below), I was quite frustrated with the lack of substance in the answers I received to the questions I posed.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: A thank-you to the member for Shuswap for his thorough canvassing of the issue of the Zapped report. I’d like to pick up on this a little bit. The member was able to canvass the procurement process, which I was as equally troubled by as the member was. The answers drawn from that were very troubling.

What I’d like to do is come up to some of the comments that are in the report and fill in some additional detail, building on what the member for Shuswap has asked. For example, the report noted that the average surplus per year that B.C. Hydro acquired was “9,500 gigawatt hours of blended energy.” However, the Clean Energy Association of B.C. highlighted that the average surplus that B.C. Hydro recorded was closer to 1,532 gigawatt hours. They base this off the number shown on B.C. Hydro’s website.

My question to the minister is: could the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro actually did acquire, as stated in the report, 9,500 gigawatt hours per year of unneeded energy?

Hon. M. Mungall: Sorry for the length in trying to sort this out, but I just want to make sure that I completely understand what the member is asking and understand the analysis and the expertise those who are sitting with me have to offer.

Basically, what happened was that the way the previous government defined what B.C. Hydro could do in being self-sufficient is what drove what ultimately would be this surplus — B.C. Hydro having to buy power that was surplus to their needs. As I stated earlier for the member’s benefit, shutting Burrard Thermal, saying that only very modest upgrades to existing assets plus Site C were allowed…. That all constrained B.C. Hydro’s ability to meet the demand of its customers throughout the province.

So it forced B.C. Hydro into a position where they had to buy power from private power producers, which therefore created this market for private power producers to develop their generation assets and then sell that power back to B.C. Hydro. As I’ve stated earlier and as Mr. Davidson pointed out in his report, much of that power was expensive and was also coming on line at the wrong time of year — namely, during the spring freshet, when B.C. Hydro just didn’t need it.

A. Weaver: I shake my head every time I get an answer. The minister is saying what the report concludes, but the report assumed the conclusion that it concluded. So it’s kind of circular to suggest that the report is concluding that the surplus required them to go to the IPPs. It’s just circular logic.

I’ll ask another question, then. What is the total surplus energy that is produced in British Columbia each year, on average? Simple question.

Hon. M. Mungall: From year to year, the total that the member is asking about does vary. But we can give him that, on average, it’s 4,000 gigawatt hours per year.

A. Weaver: Does that report also note that the value for energy would be its market value? The member for Shuswap talked about this — mid-C, basically.

I understand that since 1989, British Columbia Hydro has entered into quite a number of long-term contracts. Can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate?

There’s no excuse for this delay. It’s a simple yes-or-no answer. I asked the question: can the minister confirm that B.C. Hydro buys energy through long-term contracts that don’t follow the mid-C market value rate, yes or no? It’s not a complex question.

Hon. M. Mungall: In every estimates, I feel like we go through this with the Leader of the Opposition. Honestly, Member, I’m just doing my best to make sure that I provide a fulsome answer. I’m not trying to delay or scoop up any of his time. I’m just trying to be fulsome. So please, just give me a moment to be able to do that for you.

In that, B.C. Hydro does buy energy, as he’s asking, at mid-C price. Only one project, though, as pointed out in Mr. Davidson’s report. Yes, B.C. Hydro does have contracts, many multi-year contracts, that are for above the mid-C price. That’s exactly the point of Mr. Davidson’s report, because the IPPs are all well above mid-C price. We know that.

For example, a lot of the IPPs are coming in at $100 per megawatt hour. Compare that to what Alberta is now doing for their wind projects, at $40 per megawatt hour. So you can see that there’s still quite a difference, even if we’re not going to be comparing it with the mid-C price. But I do want to highlight that the mid-C price is a benchmark for what ratepayers can get for surplus energy when B.C. Hydro has to sell that.

A. Weaver: Again, I shake my head. I ask a question, and I get a response to a question I didn’t ask. I was asking about long-term mid-C market value rates. Maybe the minister can say why Mr. Davidson didn’t consider these. I’m not talking about the IPPs. I’m talking about whether or not B.C. Hydro, since 1989, long before the IPPs were ever even talked about, has bought energy through long-term contracts. Yes or no? And if so, why were they not discussed and mentioned at all in the Davidson report?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes, B.C. Hydro does have long-term contracts. I did mention that in my previous answer. I am sorry I don’t have the report right in front of me, but I do recall Mr. Davidson talking about some of those. I did already mention, as well, that he noted that there is one project that does have a long-term contract for mid-C prices.

A. Weaver: In the Zapped report, there was a line that caught my attention. It was based on the interviews. The report claimed that the 2007 energy plan was created with the intent to “create the appearance of an energy shortfall.” It is remarkable that an independent consultant would provide value-added commentary like that in a so-called independent report. I’m shocked, to say the least.

Anyway, I continue. However, I was under the impression that much of the 2007 energy plan — and frankly, I was here and working with government at the time on that energy plan — was designed to get British Columbia to be self-sufficient in its energy production.

Can the minister confirm that prior to 2007, there were several years of high net energy imports and a strong domestic load growth projected? It’s a simple question. Prior to 2007, can the minister confirm that there were several years of high net energy imports and strong domestic load growth projected?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member wants yes-or-no answers, so I’ll just say yes, and I will not endeavour to seek further information unless he specifically asks for it. Pardon me for doing that in the past.

A. Weaver: I’m going to continue on this theme, because there are a lot of assumptions that have been stated here as facts and conclusions from the report that were not conclusions. They were assumptions. Here are some others. I’m going to discuss the issue of importing power.

The minister has said that we have a surplus of energy produced over the last number of years. However, the large fluctuations that happen from year to year, based on water levels, can dramatically change how much power we produce.

In B.C. Hydro’s compliance filing form F17-19 revenue requirement application, it stated: “In the past ten years, there has been a difference of 12,000 gigawatt hours between low and high water…requiring surplus sales or market purchases.” There’s a slight missing word in there.

Anyway, the reality is the 12,000 gigawatt hours between high and low waters is the key number there. It’s a very big difference.

My question to the minister is this. I’d like to know if we were a net importer of energy in British Columbia over the last year? Yes or no? Or in any of the other previous years? Yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: Yes.

A. Weaver: Can the minister please tell us how much B.C. Hydro paid to import energy in March or this past quarter?

Hon. M. Mungall: We spent $54.9 million net importing energy in March.

A. Weaver: So we spent $54 million importing energy. We had too much energy surplus, that we didn’t need these projects. Very interesting.

Can the minister please provide how much power, on average, we have been importing over the last ten years?

Hon. M. Mungall: I did say that I would only provide the yes-or-no answers that the member wanted and the very short answers that he would like, but I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the British Columbians who might be watching this, as well as to the member to not inform him that the reason why there was an import of energy recently is due to low water levels.

For example, in my riding, I can look not too far down the hill and see exactly what those water levels are because the Kootenay Lake is, essentially, a reservoir for B.C. Hydro, along with Duncan Lake and so on. So those are the parts in my riding.

But generally, over the last decade, we’ve actually be exporting energy, not importing it.

A. Weaver: I’ll come to that shortly — maybe now. Pushing on, first I’d like to ask… The $54 million — what was the price that you were selling it at in March of this year?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member might have misspoken, but he can correct me if that’s not the case. I think he meant what we were buying it at, the price that we were buying it at.

A. Weaver: Sorry, yes.

Hon. M. Mungall: Okay. In March, we were buying it at $57 per megawatt hour, Canadian.

A. Weaver: So the average price was $57 per megawatt hour.

I understand that Powerex is the key trading arm of B.C. Hydro. Well, it is a trading arm of B.C. Hydro, but I know it’s separate. It imports and exports power when it’s financially advantageous to do so. It brings money directly into the provincial coffers — a good thing, I would suggest.

However, the power we import comes from Alberta and the U.S. I’m concerned that much of it, if not all of it, is brown power, despite the rhetoric we hear from this minister. That’s power created by burning natural gas or coal, which emits high levels of CO₂. Over 80 percent of Alberta’s electricity is coal- or gas-generated. In Washington state, there are over a dozen coal and natural gas plants. Can the minister confirm that the majority of the power that B.C. Hydro, via Powerex, imports to B.C. is from natural gas– and coal-fired plants?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I appreciate the member’s concern about exactly what type of power is coming to B.C. I know that he knows that electrons aren’t tagged one way or another, except in the situation with the Canadian entitlement, which is the Columbia River treaty. When we’re getting that power coming up from the United States, that is hydroelectric power. We know that that particular power is not generated by using coal or natural gas. In terms of in March, it’s hard to say whether it was natural gas–fired or coal-fired if it was not the Canadian entitlement, power that we were purchasing at that time. We were purchasing at that time, as I said earlier, because of low reservoirs.

That being said, it’s important to note that in Alberta, they’re increasing their wind generation. Solar is increasing as well in Alberta. Wind and solar as well below the 49th parallel is also increasing.

As more renewables come on line, we are obviously trading in more renewables. What I would say is it may be not the case for March, but in general, when we are buying power from other jurisdictions, it’s normally when they have an excess of wind, or an excess of solar, and they’re putting that on to the grid.

What is likely coming into B.C. is power generated from those avenues.

A. Weaver: I’m getting very close to calling for the resignation of this minister, hon. Chair, based on the lack of substance of these answers. This is a minister who clearly does not understand the file, clearly does not understand how electricity is produced and shipped. This is a minister who is responsible for the oversight of B.C. Hydro’s next review? It’s just shocking.

Let me explain to the minister how the power comes through. Coal and natural gas plants typically run, not on natural gas, 24-7. Powerex recognizes that, at night, coal power, which is going 24-7, is really cheap, because demand is low. But it doesn’t need to actually need to sell the power from it’s hydro dams, so it saves that for the day. We’re importing coal power and making money by shipping off clean power.

The minister should know that. The minister should not be trying to imply to British Columbians that somehow we’re buying wind and solar, intermittent sources. But we’re not. It is shocking, just shocking, that we’re hearing this in estimates today. I’m stunned. I almost feel like sitting down. I cannot believe that this is what we’re hearing.

Anyway, I’ll continue. I think it’s fair to say that based on these aspects of how the U.S. Pacific Northwest and Alberta generate their power, particularly their low-cost power, that the majority share of it will come from coal and natural gas. I think that’s safe to say.

Can the minister give an estimate of how much emissions were generated based on B.C.’s import of this brown power over the last year? What the emissions input…? That’s leakage into our province from emissions, because we’re buying brown power in this province.

Hon. M. Mungall: The Ministry of Environment does work with Powerex to calculate the carbon intensity of the energy that British Columbia imports. I’m happy to get that number for the member.

In terms of my previous answer that has clearly sparked outrage from the other member, I want to be clear that I’m just trying to share information that is coming to me from our experts at B.C. Hydro who are working on these issues every single day and trying to share that with the member so that he has a better understanding but also a bit of comfort in terms of where we are getting our electricity from when we are importing. The world is changing, as we know. We know that coal-fired plants are starting to be shut down in favour of renewables or lower GHG emission plants. I’m just wanting to share that information with the member.

A. Weaver: I so very much appreciate the minister providing the information on a file that I’m not certain she understands, frankly. I’m not certain she has a grasp of this most important file in our province, based not on the answers of the last question but the answers that I’ve been getting throughout estimates here, both this time and last time and in question period — time after time after time.

And to throw the good people of B.C. Hydro under the bus, to suggest that she is conveying the information to me about wind and solar in the U.S. from the good people at B.C. Hydro — that’s just ludicrous.

Coming to energy self-sufficiency. In 2012, the provincial government changed the regulation that forms the basis of electrical generating and planning criteria that B.C. Hydro uses. Historically, the definition of “critical water conditions” was used to ensure that there would always be a certain amount of power available. The previous government changed that metric. Instead of using critical water conditions, they now use the average water conditions. Overnight the amount of energy that B.C. Hydro could reliably produce went up by 5,600 gigawatt hours, through the definitional change there.

With climate change and variability predicted to continue, this change to using average water conditions for planning does not seem to be very prudent. Instead of being self-sufficient when a drought happens, we could be faced with a real possibility of importing large amounts of power if such a drought were to happen, because of poor planning.

Has the minister considered the impact of using average water conditions to forecast energy generation potential? I can maybe do two at once: given the variability in water flows this province is facing, is it prudent to continue to use average water flows as the basis for predicting the amount of power that we can generate?

Hon. M. Mungall: The member’s question is if using average water flows for predicting energy generation is good, if it’s the right way to go. I think that is a very important question, and it’s actually one that we’re going to be looking at in phase 2 of our B.C. Hydro review. It is going to, ultimately, feed into the integrated resource plan, the IRP.

As we continue on in this process, I very much appreciate the member’s knowledge on this file. I very much appreciate the member’s expertise in this area and that he is seeking more information. I am doing my best to offer it to him. I know he doesn’t like me personally, but I don’t know that personal attacks are helping the estimates process at all.

Point of Order

A. Weaver: May I ask that you please, as a point of order, ask the minister to withdraw that? That is outrageous. This has nothing to do with personal and everything to do with lack of substance in the answers that we’re getting on a file that’s very, very important. I find it offensive that the minister would stand and try to deflect from the criticism and concerns I and my friends here have had on the answers that we’re getting and turn it into an ad hominem.

The Chair: I think that in the best interests of everyone, we should take a five-minute break. So I’m going to recess the committee for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:49 p.m.

Point of Order
(Chair’s Ruling)

The Chair: Prior to the recess, the Leader of the Third Party raised a point of order relating to comments made by the minister. Upon consideration of the point of order and the circumstances leading to it being raised, I note that both the Leader of Third Party and the minister expressed some frustration with this debate.

I recognize in this committee room that any criticism within the debate can escalate and be amplified, particularly in this small setting. So it’s my expectation that we can now resume debate on Vote 22 with all members treating each other with respect.

Debate Continued

A. Weaver: I’m going to move to final questions on Site C. As Site C progresses, we learn more and more about the shady nature of what occurred and continues to occur to get the project past the point of no return.

Between 2016 and 2018, no fewer than 38 contracts were directly awarded, avoiding a more transparent and competitive tender process. Close to $90 million has been awarded from B.C. Hydro to a variety of companies, some with close ties to the official opposition, with respect, and some that are simply numbered companies. Transparency is lacking, and awarding public funds to numbered companies is, frankly, somewhat suspect.

Site C is a huge undertaking that has already cost the citizens of British Columbia an enormous amount. For contracts to be awarded directly, without due process or justification, frankly, I would argue, is unacceptable. Can the minister please explain why the awarding of direct contracts like this was occurring under her watch?

Hon. M. Mungall: The percentage of contracts that are direct award is 3 percent of all the contracts since July 2015 that B.C. Hydro has procured. Many of those contracts that are direct-awarded are to Indigenous businesses.

The numbered company that the member spoke of…. That direct-award happened in January 2017, prior to the 2017 election. It’s pursuant to B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy, and it is for road remediation and various erosion and sediment control works.

That company was designated by the Doig River First Nation as their business partner to complete the work. As I said, it falls in line with B.C. Hydro’s Aboriginal procurement policy as well as their IBAs.

A. Weaver: The government announced a Site C project assurance board to oversee the project and ensure it stays on time and on budget. But what is the point, frankly, of having a private board issue reports that no one can have access to, other than government?

When the government was in opposition they rightly criticized the previous government for excluding Site C from review by the BCUC. However, now that they’re in control, they’ve set up their own board to oversee the project — a board that is not accountable publicly, a board whose members were handpicked and a board that is anything but independent. I understand that even a year after this project assurance board was created, the government has still not determined if the public will be privy to what it’s reporting on. Can the minister please let us know if the project assurance board will have any accountability to the public?

Hon. M. Mungall:  I know the member recalls that our government did have the B.C. Utilities Commission review the Site C project, and it continues to review quarterly reports about Site C. Those reports are reviewed and approved by the public assurance board — PAB is the acronym — and I would mention that PAB is accountable to government, and it reports regularly to Treasury Board as well.

A. Weaver: My question was not that, hon. Chair. My question was: can the minister let us know if the project assurance board will have accountability to the public — yes or no?

Hon. M. Mungall: I think the member may have a different view of how that accountability occurs than it currently does. Perhaps he would like to lay out what he thinks might be a better strategy or a better process than what we have right now, which is going to Treasury Board, accountable directly to government as well, in that it is reviewing all of the quarterly reports on Site C that are ultimately delivered and deposited with the B.C. Utilities Commission.

A. Weaver: Well, I’m not the minister. Therefore, I’m not able to answer the question as to whether or not the reports and recommendations written by the project assurance board are made public or not. That is really a question of her ministry. It’s not for me to say we would…. Yes, if I were Minister of Energy, we would make those reports public if there are such reports. That’s all I’m asking.

Is there going to be…? As I pointed out, the public assurance board was created by government, appointed by government. There’s nothing reporting out from government. It’s a simple question. Will there be a public transparency component to the assurance board?

Hon. M. Mungall: I appreciate that maybe the member would like to see reports put on line or so on. The reports that are made to the public are the quarterly reports on Site C that are approved by the public assurance board and then delivered to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Those reports are available to the public on their website.

A. Weaver: We’ve heard directly from residents on the ground who are monitoring the progress of the dam and the work on the diversion tunnels. It has been on hold for quite some time now, I understand. Can the minister please provide an update as to what is going on and if this is further delay to the construction schedule?

Hon. M. Mungall: There was a two-week stand-down. This was because WorkSafe was investigating an electrical incident that happened with a worker. The worker is fine — so that everybody knows that he’s fine — and that’s very good news for that worker, but it required a two-week investigation by WorkSafe following up on that.

The tunnelling does still continue, and Hydro is still projecting to achieve river diversion by September 2020.

I had the distinct honour of addressing delegates at the British Columbia Wildlife Federation (BCWF) Annual General Meeting & Convention in Fort St. John today. Below I reproduce the text of my speech.

Text of Speech

Introduction:

Hello and thank you for inviting me to join you here today at your AGM.

I’m glad to be here again to hear first hand from you about the challenges you see on our land base.

As many of you know I live and work in the Victoria region, well removed from the day-to-day experiences you have with your land and the wildlife you share it with.

That’s why I think it’s so important for me to come here and listen to your experiences. We are currently in the midst of the Spring legislative session, which means I have to be within 3-minutes of the legislative chamber at all times when the House is sitting in case there is vote – so that makes leaving Victoria quite tricky, but I’m glad I was able to fly up for today, even though it is a quick turn around.

I have been an MLA for almost 6 years now, and am grateful for every trip I get to take to Interior and Northern communities. Every time I am here I am reminded that there are no better caretakers of the land than those who have lived on it for generations.

You are impacted by the policies passed in Victoria, and see the consequences firsthand when they have been built on inadequate consultation or when they lack necessary local and traditional knowledge.

I think this is something that government and politicians of all stripes need to do better- myself included. That’s why I’m here today. And it is why I’ll be back with my colleagues again this summer as we travel through the Interior and Northern BC, learning from people who aren’t able to meet with us very easily in our community offices.

With wildlife policy, the importance of linking science with local and traditional knowledge is even more important. While we must all be guided by evidence about the state of our province’s wilderness and wildlife, that doesn’t replace the engagement of communities and the conversations that must take place about what the reality is on ground where the policies will apply. You cannot effectively have one without the other… As we’re seeing with the mess government has made of the caribou recovery situation.

To start, I will give a quick recap about the status of this minority government and revisit some of the remarks I made at last year’s AGM about wildlife population trends generally, because, unfortunately, things have not substantially improved since then.

I will also talk about the work my colleague Adam Olsen has been doing on wild salmon.

And, finally, I will provide an update on my perspective on glyphosate – touching on issues concerning climate change, cumulative effects, and the importance of stewardship along the way.

CASA/Minority Government:

Back in Spring 2017 – When the election results came in, indicating a minority government, with the BC Greens holding the balance of responsibility- we felt an enormous weight on our shoulders. We took our decision very seriously.

In the end, we decided to go with the party that was open to working on climate policies and that is why we chose to support a BC NDP minority government over the BC Liberal minority government.

There have been ups and downs in our relationship, and there are things we simply won’t ever agree on.

My Green caucus colleagues and I don’t have the power to dictate the NDP’s agenda. We are consulted on policy and we bring our concerns, solutions, and perspective to the table. We collaborate on certain files like climate policy, professional reliance, child care, and initiatives to build a sustainable economy. But, ultimately, at the end of the day they are government, and we are in opposition.

In that role, we are also the recipient of a staggering amount of correspondence about environmental, economic, and social concerns from people all across the province. Anyone with environmental concerns that they feel aren’t being adequately addressed by the NDP or Liberals – which is pretty much all of them – comes to our office for support. I wish we could lean into every case and solve every problem, but there are only 3 of us and we have a very small, though determined, team.

It has been a learning experience.

For the first while after the election we tried to tackle every case, but we quickly learned that we were spreading ourselves so thin that we were no longer being effective. Instead, over the last year and a half, we have tried to focus strategically on our foundational issues and overarching policies. For that is where we can do the most good and have the biggest impact.

For example, rather than taking on every incidence of companies harming the environment by cutting, polluting, or contaminating, we made government review the overarching professional reliance model that governs industry’s work. This strategic focus means we can advance big picture policy changes that will restore some of that critical oversight and regulation back to government. Likewise, our work on the new Environmental Assessment Act requires early and upfront involvement of First Nations and better evaluation of cumulative and climate impacts before projects are approved.

This work isn’t as catchy or captivating as fighting every case of environmental injustice, but, from a governance perspective, it is more effective and more responsible.

And as I said, one of the main reasons we decided to form the agreement with the NDP is because I wanted to work on meaningful policies to address the looming climate crisis.

I know many of you see this firsthand – In many respects, your communities are on the frontline of climate change.

You are directly impacted by the pressure that climate change is putting on the forestry industry through pests, droughts, and fires, for example.

Where we only see the smoke of wildfires in Victoria or Vancouver, many of you actually fight the flames and experience the evacuations, displacement and devastating loss of property that can come with it.

I do not underestimate the physical, mental, emotional, and financial toll that can take on a person or on a community.

Ensuring that you live in a healthy environment – that you can hunt and fish and live on the land with your children and grandchildren – that is what motivated me to sign with a party that I thought was more likely to take climate action and environmental stewardship seriously.

While most politicians seem to be governing exclusively for the next election cycle, my Green caucus colleagues and I are trying to also govern for future generations and the long term well being of the environment we all depend on.

Science and state of the environment:

Prior to running for office, I was a climate scientist. So, while I do not have specialized knowledge about all species or ecosystems the way a biologist, forest ecologist, or someone with deep local or traditional knowledge might, I do share that commitment to trying to solve problems from an evidence-based perspective.

I have dedicated my career to understanding our world and its problems through science and have been surprised at how difficult it is to convince governments to consistently follow scientific reasoning. While the concept of science-based wildlife management has generally been endorsed in B.C., it has not always been applied.

There have been some successes. But the selective application of even sound policy has led to more disasters.

Many wildlife populations are in jeopardy today. Mountain caribou are facing extirpation, wild salmon – a foundation species – are in shocking decline, spotted owls are virtually extinct, and moose populations, which many families rely on, are in trouble across the province.

What we find in almost all of these instances is that there has been inadequate science, particularly concerning cumulative impacts, and that an unacceptable loss or alteration of vital habitat has occurred.

The management of wildlife, and the application, or not, of scientific principles, continues to stir great controversy and emotional debate in B.C. Understandably so.

Wildlife management conflicts in which species are pitted against one another are truly challenging, but I have always maintained that humans – elected representatives in particular – have a moral obligation to prevent endangered species from going extinct.

Often, extreme situations are created because government has failed to act. They are typically situations that – for a variety of industrial, social, or budgeting excuses – have been allowed to escalate far past a point of simpler intervention.

Some say that humans should not interfere with nature, but sadly, intervention is sometimes necessary. Simply put, many ecosystems have been altered so drastically that we can no longer just stand by and let nature take its course.

Predator control, hunting closures, and restrictions that stop industries from undertaking resource developments are all difficult matters for governments to deal with.

But things aren’t going to get easier. The management of wildlife is becoming increasingly complex and fraught with risk.

Habitat loss is mounting.

The human population is growing.

Roads and pipelines have been spreading into the farthest reaches of the province, and researchers have discovered how such developments increase predation, shift wildlife distribution, and impact abundance.

Adding to all these other stressors is climate change. The full implications aren’t yet clear, but we cannot situate our wildlife strategies in the past. Our environment is changing and will continue to do so.

Government must be prudent and precautionary as we manage our changing landscape as the planet warms. The timing and abundance of food availability, for instance, will shift for some plants and animals. Species reliant on their stability will need space and additional resources if they are to adapt.

In many respects, Northern BC, the Interior, and the people who live off those lands are on the front lines of climate change.

You are the ones fighting forest fires and flooding.

You are the boots on the ground when government is slow to act.

For far too long government has shortchanged wildlife management in B.C.

It’s fine for Ministers to say they support science-based decisions – but where is the science? Where are the field researchers? Where are the basic boots on the ground that are needed to keep a close watch on our wildlife populations and habitat? I’d say many of them are in this room.

The necessary funding just isn’t there.

B.C. ranks behind its neighbours in the northwest when it comes to investment in wildlife management. Alberta, Washington, Montana, Oregon, Idaho, Utah – all spend more on managing less.

The shameful underfunding of wildlife management has taken place under successive Liberal regimes. Now we have a new NDP government, but it has yet to fully embrace – or fund – science-based management.

B.C. is Canada’s most ecologically diverse province but if we are to maintain that rich biodiversity, we need to see a serious commitment to science-based, evidence-based wildlife management – and we need to have dedicated wildlife funding put in place, so managers have the budgets, and the staff, required to do the job.

As the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services recommended in its Report on the Budget 2017 Consultations, license fees collected from natural resource users (hunters, anglers, ecotourists, etc.) should be directed into conservation and wildlife management services, rehabilitation, enforcement and education.

Effective natural resource management is reliant on funding, science, and social support. We seem to have consensus on this within the B.C. government, but it needs to be put into action.

Prior to the election, I campaigned on establishing a Natural Resource Commissioner who could lead a Natural Resources Board responsible for establishing sustainable harvest and extraction levels and reporting on the state of B.C.’s environment and natural assets. The NRB, I proposed, would conduct cumulative impact assessments, and oversee the application of the professional reliance model.

There is much we can do to advance the values of scientific monitoring, reporting, and cumulative assessment.

Managing wildlife has always been difficult, but never more so than now, in the face of climate change.

We need a comprehensive science- and ecosystem-based approach to wildlife management. We simply cannot continue to perpetuate the slow, methodical extirpation of native species in B.C.

Ecosystem-based management calls for natural resources, habitat, and species to be managed collectively, over a long time frame, rather than just looking at a single sector or single species.

Cumulative impacts are assessed – an approach which B.C. urgently must follow because of the sweep of industrial development now taking place in many sectors of the province.

Given the countless challenges facing wildlife in our province, two of the most important things we can do to protect biodiversity is to work with local communities to leave key habitat areas intact and restore and improve funding to conservation, monitoring and scientific management efforts.

As British Columbia continues to warm and precipitation patterns continue to change,

as flooding and drought becomes more frequent and extreme,

as out of control wildfires become more common and more damaging,

as pest infestations become more diverse,

and as between 20 and 30 percent of the world’s plants and animals becoming at risk of extinction by mid century,

we have a responsibility to take steps now.

It won’t be easy. But proactively protecting ecosystems to improve resiliency and adaptive capacity to the changes a warming climate will bring is vital.

Salmon:

My colleague Adam Olsen, the MLA for Saanich North and the Islands, has dedicated much of his time to fighting for the protection and restoration of wild salmon in BC.

Adam made it his mission to speak for the salmon in the BC Legislature; raising their challenges repeatedly in question period and canvassing the six Ministries with salmon jurisdiction in estimates. Nearly every Minister’s answer was some version of… ‘I care about wild salmon too, but, unfortunately, that’s not my job.’

Amidst the finger pointing and confusion about who is doing what, Adam identified a possible path forward and called on the government to establish a Wild Salmon Secretariat to streamline all the work being done within the BC government and – importantly – be a strong defender of wild salmon in negotiations with the federal government.

After all, he reasoned, good salmon policy is good environmental, social and economic policy.

Last Spring, Adam organized a special forum that brought together a wide range of stakeholder groups to discuss his proposal in greater detail.

Representatives of First Nations, fish and wildlife organizations, conservation groups, non-profit advocacy agencies and a commercial fishing union met to discuss how the province could play a more effective role in the management of wild salmon. BC Wildlife Federation, of course, was in attendance.

Salmon are largely a federal responsibility, but several speakers at the forum highlighted the province’s responsibility for watersheds. Salmon are vitally important to British Columbians, they said, and the province should prioritize their well being.

The majority of participants also relayed frustration in trying to deal with the provincial government on salmon issues, having been passed from department to department because there was no single ministry in charge of the file.

When government tries to balance every competing interest, wild fish are the losers. Adam argued instead that when we put wild fish first, long-term benefits flow to all interests.

With six different provincial ministries, in addition to DFO federally, involved in the management of salmon and steelhead proactive protection is very rarely achieved. These ministries (the Ministry of Environment being the exception) all have mandates to advance development that is detrimental to salmon.

They are tasked with mitigating damage where possible, but it is not the priority. In addition, no one in government is tracking the cumulative impact of all these activities.

Even if each ministry only has a moderate impact on fish habitat, it can add up to salmon being hit at every stage of their development: spawning grounds are constrained by municipal expansion, streams are channeled under roads, rivers are polluted with agricultural runoff, watersheds are logged causing waterways to cloud with silt and get too hot, migratory routes are lined with fish farms… No one in government is taking the perspective of the salmon.

With the encouragement of stakeholders and First Nations, Adam released a report and challenged the government to pick up his proposal to create a wild salmon secretariat for the province, based in the premier’s office.

Government agreed… but then put their own spin on it. They did create a wild salmon secretariat in the premier’s office, but instead of giving them a mandate to streamline and coordinate the work being done for salmon and steelhead, they struck a 14-person wild salmon advisory council and tasked the salmon secretariat with coordinating their work…

It wasn’t exactly what we were going for: we wanted one leader and more coordination – not 14 additional voices.

We were told the Wild Salmon Advisory Council would write a report and then refer it to a legislative committee for official public consultation around the province.

To keep the work moving, we agreed to support the Council on the condition that their assignment be done with urgency. Adam was on the council and advocated to have more conservation representation. When that didn’t happen he worked to represent that voice himself.

Other challenge came when government decided to scrap the idea of having the legislative committee do the consultation and instead got the council to hold last-minute town halls. We disagreed with that approach because it lacked official transparency and was disproportionately focused on coastal communities at the exclusion of inland areas that also rely on salmon.

We declined to attend any of those town halls.

Despite the disorganized process, the Wild Salmon Advisory Council drafted a strong report and submitted their final recommendations to government this winter. Glad to have their work completed Adam focused on the next hurdle: getting government to action and fund the salmon restoration and protection measures we all know are needed.

In our 2019 budget submission, four of our top five requests were salmon and habitat restoration focused. Adam tweeted a salmon and steelhead demand at government every day – threatening to keep going until they found some money for wild fish.

He repeated, countless times, his demands:

1. Government needs to protect vital and intact ecosystems (like the Heart of the Fraser acquisition BCWF has been working on),
2. Government needs to restore habitat by funding local restoration projects, and
3. Government needs to coordinate and streamline the responsibility for wild fish within the provincial government – if we allow 6 ministries plus DFO to all take a “lead role” on fish we will manage them to zero.

I was getting sick of hearing Adam rant about salmon all day every day, so gratefully, this March we got notice that the money was coming and the tweets could stop. The province and federal governments came together to allocate $142 million dollars over five years for salmon in BC.

The first round of applications have been submitted (on an expedited timeline because of the federal election) and there are some really exciting projects in the mix.

Adam recently got an update from government on the funding and is feeling cautiously optimistic that some strong community and First Nations-led habitat restoration projects will be approved.

The next phase of his salmon and steelhead work will focus on making sure government approves and funds projects in a coordinated, strategic manner so that the money is actually effective at restoring or protecting fish. If we approve a million dollar spawning ground restoration project, for example, but continue to allow gill netting downstream or clear cutting upstream we won’t achieve much… So the work continues.

I really appreciate Adam’s dedication to this file and his willingness to stay at the table focused on the end goal.

In regards to the recent chinook closures, our position was similar to BCWFs, I believe. Obviously, we support conservation closures for species at risk of extinction (especially of gillnet fisheries which are non-selective), but we also call on both governments to reconcile their ongoing contributions to climate change and ecosystem destruction that has led to the decline of wild salmon in the first place.

Governments have to go beyond partial measures to address the more systemic problems limiting salmon productivity so that theses sacrifices from hard working British Columbians and local communities are not made in vain.

Yes, we are at a point with many of these salmon and steelhead stocks where everyone has to make sacrifices and all of the stakeholders and First Nations we’ve spoken to are willing to go without to support recover. But, in our perspective, that needs to be everyone – governments and industry included.

They need to address the root causes of their declines: climate change effects (ocean acidification, extreme weather, floods, mega-wildfires, drought and increased water temperatures) and land management effects (over logging of watersheds, which leads to hotter, siltier rivers; water pollution from mines, other industry, and agriculture; and the destruction of habitat, especially key spawning grounds).

As it currently stands, it’s hard not to feel that Ottawa is making British Columbians pay for their decades of mismanagement.

Glyphosate:

To glyphosate, my colleagues and I have been challenging government on this issue in question period and estimates since it was brought to my attention by your leadership.

As you well know, every years tens of thousands of hectares of forest in British Columbia are aerially treated with glyphosate. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the weedkiller at the centre of the Monsanto case that recently revealed a corporate campaign to cover up the risks that this chemical poses to plant, animal, and human life.

We’ve been treating forests with glyphosate because it kills off broadleaf plants, allowing trees that are valuable for logging, such as lodgepole pine, to proliferate. In other words: it creates monocrops rather than the diversified forests that our landbase is supposed to support. In turn, monocropped forests are vulnerable to more frequent and destructive wildfires and beetle infestations.

For decades researchers have also been reporting reduced numbers of rodents, moose, insects, and birds in forests that have been sprayed.

In other words, there is overwhelming evidence that we shouldn’t be treating our land base with glyphosate. Our environment is facing many challenges in this era of climate change: we shouldn’t be adding a harmful chemical on top of that.

I’m keen to continue to work with you on this file and appreciate the input you’ve given me so far.

Conclusion:

Our province, and indeed our world, are facing more challenges than ever before. And you are at the front lines of these challenges as the environment changes in unprecedented ways. We need your perspectives; we need your expertise. Combined with scientific evidence, I believe your local and traditional knowledge holds the answers for the big problems we face.

If there’s one thing my colleagues and I have learned since the election of 2017, it’s that the best solutions come from collaboration. The best solutions come out of meaningful consultation with all stakeholders involved; from collaborating with parties with whom you may not always agree. When we stop listening to one another or overlook one group’s opinion, we impede our ability to leave a better world for future generations to inherit.

I’m hopeful that in the face of mounting environmental challenges, we’ll be able to adapt and thrive.

Thank you for your continued stewardship and guidance.

The BC Government today released two new reports outlining the scale of money laundering that has been rampant in British Columbia over the last few years.

The first report was coauthored by Professor Maureen Maloney (SFU School of Public Policy), Professor Tsur Somerville (UBC Sauder School of Business), and Professor Brigitte Unger (School of Economics, Utrecht University). It painted an extraordinarily grim picture of widespread money laundering through British Columbia’s real estate sector totalling upwards of $7.3 billion in 2018 alone. In making 29 recommendations this expert panel noted that “a strong government response is urgently required.”

The second report comprised Part 2 of Peter German’s comprehensive three-part analysis into money laundering in BC. Part 2, entitled Dirty Money — Part 2.  Turning the Tide – An Independent Review of Money Laundering in B.C. Real Estate, Luxury Vehicle Sales & Horse Racing, expanded upon his initial analysis into money laundering in BC casinos released on March 31, 2018. The release of Part 2 followed on the heels of government releasing Part 3 of German’s analysis (on Tuesday) into money laundering in luxury cars.

Money laundering through the purchase and sale of luxury automobiles formed the basis of my questions to the Attorney General today during Question Period today. Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. I also reproduce copies of the media statement we issued in response to government’s release of today’s reports and my statement delivered at today’s press conference.

Video of Exchange

Question

A. Weaver: Earlier this week the Attorney General confirmed that money laundering goes beyond our casinos. Our biggest city is not just known for the dubious criminal distinction as the Vancouver model for money laundering, it’s also known as the luxury car capital of North America, fuelled, in part, by suspected criminal activity. Indeed, provincial employees identified numerous red flags connecting money laundering to the luxury vehicle export market, and despite these flags, the province issued over $85 million in PST refunds since 2013 to many suspicious individuals.

My question is to the Attorney General. He has said he has taken action on this finding, but why was this suspicious activity allowed to persist for so long? And why did it take this special report to highlight what government officials have known for many years?

Answer

Hon. D. Eby: I thank the member for the question. This is obviously a very serious issue, and I’m very grateful to Dr. German and his team. Former chief LePard was a key part of this report that uncovered this troubling information: among other things, car dealers saying they’re in the middle of money laundering; uncovering the use of straw buyers to purchase luxury cars; thousands of straw buyers acting on behalf of exporters who are the true purchasers, claiming PST rebates; people with extensive criminal backgrounds running resale operations of luxury cars, people who wouldn’t qualify for a liquor licence or other government licences but allowed to operate and run these businesses — obviously, major issues.

The member asked why it has taken so long to uncover these things. One of the major reasons that has been a theme throughout Dr. German’s reports is a lack of oversight, a lack of enforcement. We are moving quickly to address those issues. The Finance Minister is, obviously, reviewing this program, making sure that criminals don’t get PST rebates, for a starter, which seems like a pretty good start. The second piece is we’re working with RCMP, with police and with the Solicitor General’s office to ensure that the provincial government can do everything we can in terms of enforcement. We’re working with regulators in terms of their mandates.

There is a lot going on in this file to respond, and I’m very grateful that Dr. German’s bringing this stuff to our attention so that we can take action on it. And I agree with the member about: why did it take so long?

Supplementary Question

Thank you to the Attorney General for the answer. One quote in the German report on luxury cars, the section released earlier this week, stood out for me. A car dealer said: “I’m right in the thick of money laundering here.” He also said: “It’s unequivocally money laundering.”

It’s not surprising he came to that conclusion when it appears to be a regular occurrence for cars to be bought with bags of cash, sometimes in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, with zero reporting requirements in the industry. It’s absolutely crazy, what’s happening in B.C., not just in casinos but in the luxury car sector. We know the next chapter of the German report will tell us the extent of money laundering in our real estate sector.

To the Attorney General: the more we learn about this, the more we know how important it is now to have a public inquiry. The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for one for months now. Thousands upon thousands of British Columbians have been calling for a public inquiry, and just last week I introduced a petition from a federal EDA of the NDP calling on this government to bring forward a public inquiry.

My question to the Attorney General is: will this government launch a public inquiry, and if so, when?

Answer

Thank you very much to the member for the question. The member knows — and I’ve outlined for him and for the Legislature — our government’s approach on this, which has been to identify what’s happening right now and move as quickly as we can to stop it. We’ve had some success in the casino sector, stopping the bulk cash transactions. We will have success in the luxury car sector, addressing the issues that have been raised here.

The issue around public inquiry is really more aimed at: who knew what when, and are there any issues related to corruption? People want to know the answers to those questions. I understand why people want to know that. I mean, this went on for a long time. It’s the decision that is in front of cabinet, and cabinet will have a decision, and government will have a decision for British Columbians very shortly.

I thank the member for that.

Media Statement

Most recent money laundering reports support BC Green call for public inquiry
For immediate release
May 9, 2019

VICTORIA, B.C. – The two reports into money laundering in B.C. directly support the value of a public inquiry, reinforcing the B.C. Green caucus’ call for government to act.

“We saw in German’s report a direct rationale for a public inquiry. Namely, that it would improve public awareness, play a crucial role in fault finding, and would help to develop full recommendations,” said B.C. Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. “The B.C. Green caucus has been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. It is time for this government to start a public inquiry so that the public can get the answers it deserves and B.C. can move forward.

“Today, we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering going on in our province. It is no surprise, but we can now be confident that illicit money has been influencing Vancouver’s housing market.

“One of the key findings of both reports was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago. Recent steps by government to address beneficial ownership through establishing a registry are encouraging, but we need to go further and end the use of beneficial ownership as a tax avoidance tool.

“We also saw that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this the report recommended a ‘system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

“With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.”

-30-

Media contact
Macon McGinley, Press Secretary
B.C. Green Third Party Caucus
+1 250-882-6187 |macon.mcginley@leg.bc.ca

Speaking notes

Today we discovered a much fuller picture of money laundering in BC –  it is clear that illicit money has been influencing our real estate market as British Columbians struggle with the impacts of the housing crisis.

One of the key findings of this report was the issue of beneficial ownership. This is something I have been raising in the legislature under both the BC Liberal and BC NDP governments as a huge loophole in our system that should have been fixed long ago.

Aside from real estate, the German report showed that there are many sectors of our economy that have lax financial regulation, leaving them vulnerable to money laundering: from bags of cash being used to buy luxury vehicles, pianos and even used to pay post-secondary fees. To deal with all of this Germans report recommended a ‘ system-wide reset’ in criminal prosecution.

With each new finding and each new report, we learn more about how our province has been exploited by criminals and how the systems and people charged with protecting us have failed over and over again. It is time to remove this investigation from any possible political influence, to get to the bottom of what happened, and to ensure that this assault never happens again. British Columbians deserve to have their public interests protected and their trust in government restored.

We have a clear rationale for a public inquiry. German himself referenced a positive change that came out of the Charbonneau Commission in Quebec. Clearly public inquiries can be useful and result in real change.

My colleagues and I have been calling for a public inquiry for months, as have thousands of British Columbians. The housing and opioid crises have impacted every single community and it is unacceptable that criminals have been profiting from these very personal, heartbreaking challenges. We need to work together. It’s time for a meaningful, independent explanation – we need a public inquiry.

Thank you.

Today in the legislature I rose during budget estimate debates for the Ministry of Finance to ask about the growing liability that British Columbia is incurring through the deep well royalty credit program. Last spring I extensively canvassed the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on the same topic. It was revealed that that as of December 31, 2017 there are $3.1 billion in unclaimed credits. It turns out that another $383 million was added last year.

Below I reproduce the video and text of our exchange. The BC Green Caucus remains profoundly troubled by the generational sellout embodied in the BC NDP corporate welfare aimed at trying to attract LNG to BC.

Video of Exchange

Text of Exchange

A. Weaver: This is for the benefit of the children in the gallery from, I believe, Surrey Christian School. What we’re doing here in the Legislature is we’re debating estimates for the Ministry of Finance. It’s a time for opposition MLAs, the Liberals or the Greens here, to pose questions to the minister about various budgetary issues that are related to her file. I’ll be asking about some finance questions with respect to natural gas royalties.

The reason why I’m posing these to the minister is that I did ask last time: the deep-well royalty credit program is actually administered by the Ministry of Finance. The qualified wells receive these credits automatically, and they don’t need to apply separately.

The credit was first created in 2003, expanded in 2014, and in last year’s public accounts, the unclaimed balance of deep-well credits totalled $2.59 billion. A further $3.5 billion has already been cashed in to reduce royalties that would otherwise have been payable. This program has reduced gas producers’ existing and future royalty liability to the Crown by nearly $6 billion.

My questions in this area are this: how many deep-well credits were issued over the past year and to whom?

Hon. C. James: The member asked how many deep-well credits. We don’t have the information around the breakdown of which are new credits and which are continuing credits with us, but I’m happy to get that information for the member of which are new. We don’t have that breakdown with us, and we’ll get that information.

On page 120, it identifies the number for new, and that would be $383 million. Then the identifier — the member asked how many and who got them — is personal tax information so we can’t provide that. But we’re happy to get the information and get it back to the member around the number of new credits for this year.

A. Weaver: Further on…. I suspect I’ll get a similar answer, and I welcome the information at a later date. How many deep-well credits have been issued since 2014 and to whom?

Hon. C. James: We’ll add that to the information for the member. We don’t have that information with us.

A. Weaver: My question, then, is: why is there not a standard public disclosure of these credits and royalties that are received? There is, for example, for stumpage fees in the province, under the harvest billing system. Why are we not making public the royalty credits that are being claimed here?

Hon. C. James: This credit, the deep-well credit, fits under FOI, and under FOI, we can’t release taxpayer information. I can’t give an explanation around why it would be different, as the member talks about, in stumpage. But the requirement is under FOI to protect individual taxpayer information, which would include, of course, the names and the identifiers.

A. Weaver: The inconsistency, as was noted, is with respect to the harvest billing system, so perhaps we could explore that at some other date.

What’s the total value of deep-well credits that are still outstanding and that could be claimed against?

Hon. C. James: As the member pointed out, $2.6 billion in ’17-18. The ’18-19 numbers get reported out in Public Accounts. That tracking is just being done now, and they get reported out in Public Accounts.

A. Weaver: My final question is with respect to FOI, freedom-of-information, requests that went to the Ministry of Finance. The file number, for reference, is FIN-2019-90584. This was a freedom-of-information request put in by an independent person outside of the Legislature. What was being requested there was a list showing the total royalty credits granted to each company that applied for such credits in the most recent fiscal year.

Now, the freedom-of-information requests from the Ministry of Energy and Mines and from the Ministry of Finance provided completely different answers. The Ministry of Energy and Mines had no issue and provided, actually, the detailed credits, by whom and to whom, whereas the Ministry of Finance withheld all information.

So my question to the minister is: why is there a discrepancy between information we’re getting from the Ministry of Energy and Mines versus the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. C. James: The FOI request that the member is referring to was asking about the infrastructure royalty credits. The infrastructure royalty credits actually have a provision where when someone applies for the credit, they give permission for their information to be shared. That’s why Energy and Mines was able to share the information, because the infrastructure royalty credits have that application for the individuals when they apply. So that’s, obviously, a different program than the deep-well credits